Replies to post #5743 on GTC Biotherapeutics (fka GTCB)

[anotherbiotechguy]

I view the possibility of your number one to be nearly nil, but one should never say never. Genetically, no "goat" will ever slip through, but some slip up in a purifation procedure, coupled with a slip up in quality assurance, coupled with a newfound issue with some fragment of goat protein that has never caused an issue before...

I think a more realistic competive risk will likely some day come from chickens. We may be able to do some real analysis if GTCB ever decides to make biosimilars like interferon 2B, or GCSF, or even EPO for that matter.

I think a bigger risk than either of those is threat of continued improvement in cell culture expression eventually narrowing the cost gap to a point where it may not be a big deal. Its not ten years ago anymore.

I wish I had more money to invest here.

[vinmantoo]

<<2) Competitive risk from Transgenic Plants. while these are still far behind GTCB, the concept is a lot easier to digest (no pun intended) and could result in much better controls and social acceptance.>>

I disagree. The fear mongers will say that you can't control the spread of pollen into the surrouding environment as easily as you can stop the spread of a few goats.

[MTB]

Now I'll be forced to disagree with my esteemed colleague on point #2.

Unlike the risks of uncontrolled, widespread environmental dispersion of genetically altered plants with unknown consequences, the goats are carefully sequestered. The whole European-(but increasingly US) based movement to ban genetically modified 'Franken Foods' is a case in point -- and one I'm not entirely sure I disagree with.

In contrast, I think one of the more attractive features of GTCB is the relatively high likelihood of ready public acceptance of this technology.

In using goats teats, GTCB has produced what is a hugely powerful, but in reality, a limited change in the way humans have employed the mammary organs of domesticated livestock for human benefit as they have for millenia, and likely did at breakfast.

In my mind, the PR benefit of GTCB is hugely preferable to that bourne by big pharma. Simply picture someone milking a heathy, playful goat playing in well-lit barn and compare this reassuring image with what strikes even me (MD, scientist, comfortable with change) as the near-horrific picture of a giant steel vat of chinese hamster ovary cells so mutated that they exist independent of any living organ or animal and do so only to (inefficiently I might add) pump out more drug. All you need is a wicked scientist laugh and the more folks know, the more horrified they will be. It is a PR nightmare.

A simple PR 'thought experiment': Imagine a 'got milk?' campaign featuring a young actress with a (familiar if atypical) goat milk moustache vs. the appearance that same (now unfortuate) actress with a vile slime of mutuated Chinese Hamster Ovary cells on the upper lip. Obviously in jest, but not inaccurate and would make for radically different public reactions.

It seems like a big pharma would be eager to buy GTCB's IP if only to claim this 'back to nature' move in drug production. Put wind turbines up on the edge of the farm, and the brilliant PR move would be worth a billion dollars easily.

Yesterday, Google announced a huge asset deposit to fund the investigation of enviromentally-sensitive sources of electricity. Tomorrow it will be JNJ/Novo/Pfizer/ et al's chance to step up -- it is only a matter of time. GTCB's IP and PR opportunities would be low-hanging fruit for them.


Best,
MTB